Taft or Concord Law School

I'm not sure that it makes sense to lump T3-T4 grads into the same category as unaccredited online grads. The California bar pass rate for online grads is something like 20%, and thats after the FYLSEX has weeded out a significant number. Of those who pass, some will have successful careers. The numbers, however, are very small.

T3-T4 law schools, on the other hand, produce plenty of successful grads. Do they have the same job opportunities as those from T1 schools with national reputations? Of course not, at least not straight out of law school. Notice that I mentioned "national reputations". Many T1 schools really only have regional reputations that don't travel as well as their grads would like to pretend. Do you honestly think a mid-sized firm in LA, for example, is going to give preference to an Iowa grad over a Southwestern grad?

Of course it all depends on how you choose to define success, but most DA/PD/Midlaw offices are well stocked with such grads.

I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

That's fine an dandy, but look at the stats again. About 90% want to become attorneys. About 25% actually practice in the legal field. Most of these folks won't even be able to pursue a legal career. I suppose there's always room for another successful barrista!

I appreciate the homework assignment, but I'll have to decline the invitation.

You're right, to an extent. But, again, you're operating under a very narrow view of what success is, or should be. Not everyone wants to work at a v100 firm, or be a federal judge, diplomat, or CEO/Lead Counsel @ Fortune 500.

It seems that your definition of success is largely equated with money, prestige, or a combination of both. Of course, everyone needs to make money, but the making of it isn't everyone's chief concern. Now granted, money is the chief concern of most want-to-be attorneys. Most 1Ls have dollar signs in their eyes, even though many will never see more than $80,000-$90,000 a year at the height of their legal careers--if they're lucky enough to earn that much.

But some folks pursue legal careers because they truly want to make a difference in their community, albeit small and hugely unprofitable. To say that, for instance, someone who devotes an entire legal career to helping want-to-be parents navigate the confusing and complex landscape of child adoption, but fails to ascend into the upper-middle class, is unsuccessful is incredibly shortsighted. Lawyering was once viewed as a helping profession, first and foremost. To my mind, a lawyer who still understands and lives by this notion is a success, irrespective of the number of digits in her bank account.

That's fine an dandy, but look at the stats again. About 90% want to become attorneys. About 25% actually practice in the legal field. Most of these folks won't even be able to pursue a legal career. I suppose there's always room for another successful barrista!

Well, unless we question those fortunate few about their legal careers, we will never know if they are successful or not. As we've illustrated, success is subjective. I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Opie58

Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law. So, there you have youíre 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success. The bar tests basic legal competence.

Practicing law is not success. Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".

And you know this is true for those folks HOW??? Passing the bar, if that's all you wanted to do, would be a success. Doing a solo practice, again if that's what you wanted to do, would be a success. Unless you have something else to show that supports your contention, than you're just another negative Nancy who THINKS they know best by demeaning anyone who pursues any other means than what he (YOU) thinks people should. We get your point - do it my way or you're a failure in my book. NOT!!! And, your vs you're - so what - point was made; debate the issue, not the semantics.

I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Based on your referred link, out of 102 people who responded, 90 wanted to become attorneys, 70 passed the bar, and 55 went on to practice law. So, there you have youíre 15, at least.

Passing the bar is not success. The bar tests basic legal competence.

Practicing law is not success. Many solo attorneys are out there losing their ass and have to take on second jobs just to make ends meet.

P.S. - It's "your", not "you're".

And you know this is true for those folks HOW??? Passing the bar, if that's all you wanted to do, would be a success. Doing a solo practice, again if that's what you wanted to do, would be a success. Unless you have something else to show that supports your contention, than you're just another negative Nancy who THINKS they know best by demeaning anyone who pursues any other means than what he (YOU) thinks people should. We get your point - do it my way or you're a failure in my book. NOT!!! And, your vs you're - so what - point was made; debate the issue, not the semantics.

I will concede, however, that for those who shared your idea of success when setting out to study law at Taft, I think all would agree that they're abject failures, as I doubt any of them have risen to the seats of power of which you covet.

Opie58

Why "concede?" That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..." It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument. The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.